Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10516
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 497 times
Been thanked: 1137 times
Contact:

Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #1

Post by William »

Q: Is belief in The Resurrection based on fact or based on faith?

From a discussion in another thread;
______________________________


[Replying to Realworldjack in post #222]
Let us recall that it was you who stated,
that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith.
This is what I stated;

"What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - and one thing which does come across is that folk did not seem to recognize that the person claiming to have resurrected was the same person they had followed for all those months. I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena."

I also stated;
I am not arguing that the stories themselves were or were not penned as true accounts of actual events by the very one(s) who experienced these things they claim to have experienced.
My argument is that we can only take their stories as hearsay, because we did not witness those events. What we each DO with the hearsay depends upon our faith in the stories being true, our faith that the stories being false, or in our lack of faith due to the nature of the evidence.

Are you saying, NONE of it aligns?
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Because you see, we have those who complain that much of the information is so closely the "aligned", they want to insist that there must, and had to be copying going on between the authors.
Apparently there are biblical scholars who accept that in those cases, copying may have occurred.
So then, exactly what would we expect? If they all report the same exact events, in the same exact way, I think we would have complaints that something would not be right here.
Yes - that it was unnecessary to have four exact copies of the same data.
If they report completely different, and contradictory information, then we would complain that something is not quite right.
Yes.
However, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect.
Which still wouldn't do away with the idea that the stories were concocted by the priesthood...such would be intelligent enough to realize that to sell the story there needs to be more than one version, especially since there are no coinciding stories circulating outside of the religion.
For example - some believe that [historical] Jesus had scribes, but there is no evidence that anyone was recording his words and nothing of the sort has been found so far.
In other words, we have some events describe in almost the same way, while we have others who record events the others may leave out, and we have some who report the same events with differences in the story. So??????? What exactly would are you looking for?
I am looking for evidence to the claim that Jesus died. [and was thus resurrected.]
Would you want them to record the same exact stories, in the same exact way? Would you want them to tell completely different stories which would contradict each other? I mean, exactly what would you accept?
Based upon the stories regarding Jesus, I would expect that Jesus didn't really die.
First, your wording is sort of strange here? You seem to be saying, they did not recognize him as the same person as they had followed, as if they recognized him as someone else? However, this is not the way it is recorded. In Luke 24 we read,
"While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him".
So here we see, it is not as though they recognize him as someone else, but rather, they simply were, "kept from recognizing him". However, as we move on a few verses later we read,
"And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him".

Firstly they must have seen him as 'someone else' for them to recognize that 'someone else' had entered into their company.
But what we do not know [and thus cannot assume] is what the writer meant in the use of the words.
Does it mean that their minds were being played with in some unknown manner or does it mean that it was something else about the stranger suddenly in their company which lead them to conclude they were in the presence of someone who was so just like the Jesus they knew, that it must have been him, or was Jesus' body was capable of 'shape-shifting' [changing it's appearance.]

However, in relation to the story of the stranger in the company, we see that the story unfolds over the course of a whole day, with the stranger telling them all sorts of things so that the dots connected [starting out by calling them 'fools' for not being able to do this for themselves] and by the end of the day, we are informed that they had no choice but to accept the evidence that the stranger [who they did not recognize as Jesus because it was a different body] was the same person that they had followed all those previous months.

As soon as they came to that conclusion, the stranger then vanished. [became invisible to them/appeared to no longer be in their company.]
Okay, as we turn our attention to the incident with Mary Magdalene, what we see as recorded in John 20, is (Mary) "Thinking that He was the gardener". Notice, it does not say, "recognizing him as the gardener".
Why would Mary know what the gardener looked like? Clearly she assumes a stranger there with the two other strangers is the caretaker and clearly she is confused and distressed.
But most importantly, she does not recognize the stranger until he calls her by her name...so it must have been how the stranger had done this which convinced Mary that it was Jesus.
Well, the only other incident I know of would be at daybreak, with the disciples in a boat off shore, and see Jesus on shore, as they have been fishing through the night with no catch. Jesus instructs them where to cast the net, and of course they have a net so full, it is difficult to pull the net in, and it is at this point, one of the disciples, does not "recognize" (as if he can actually see him) this as Jesus, but simply says, "It is the Lord"! Once they were all on shore, as it is recorded, they all seem to recognize this person as Jesus.

These are the only events such as this I am aware of. The above would not be my "explanation for this phenomena" because I have no explanation. Rather, this is the way it is recorded.
So we have hearsay [the stories] and within that, we have incidences which align and form an image of someone who has a distinctly different body than the normal Human form as it appears to be able to do things which normal human forms are not seen to be capable of doing.

But overall, there is nothing about the story of the resurrection [The Subject] which can be pointed to as factual [rather than hearsay] and thus, to believe in said story - one has to do so on faith.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10516
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 497 times
Been thanked: 1137 times
Contact:

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #761

Post by William »

[Replying to Tcg in post #760]
In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.
IF they call themselves "Christian" THEN it is safe to say that they will presume exactly that.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7151
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1284 times
Been thanked: 1507 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #762

Post by Tcg »

William wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:19 am [Replying to Tcg in post #760]
In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.
IF they call themselves "Christian" THEN it is safe to say that they will presume exactly that.
That is your accusation and yours alone.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10516
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 497 times
Been thanked: 1137 times
Contact:

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #763

Post by William »

Tcg wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:25 am
William wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:19 am [Replying to Tcg in post #760]
In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.
IF they call themselves "Christian" THEN it is safe to say that they will presume exactly that.
That is your accusation and yours alone.


Tcg
Do you have information which shows us that your accusation is any different? Perhaps the better way to word things is to name those branches of theism which believe that there was "rebellion against God" instead of painting every theist with the same brush.

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 2026
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 275 times
Been thanked: 967 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #764

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:19 am [Replying to Tcg in post #760]
In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.
IF they call themselves "Christian" THEN it is safe to say that they will presume exactly that.

All of them or just Some?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #765

Post by The Tanager »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmYou present nothing but unprovable claims by unprovable people regarding unprovable events.

While stating that “proof” was neither what I was doing, nor what is reasonable to pursue in the large majority of our important beliefs. Obviously, that doesn't mean pursuing what is unreasonable or what most of you seem to mean by "faith".
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmWhat field of study do you propose would be best at determining facts regarding dead bodies hopping up and strolling to town?

History and philosophy.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmYou've taken on faith the following...

1. God exists
2. Mary exists
3. God impregnated Mary in contradiction to his own edict about sexing up someone's wife
3. Which brings us to Mary being married
4. A god and human can create viable offspring
5. That offspring was Jesus
6. Jesus was dead in a tomb
7. Jesus hopped up and left that tomb after three days of dead

Where've you put fact to even one the above faith claims?

You wanna keep fussing about how the resurrection should be accepted as fact, but you do absolutely nothing to put fact to any of it.

Your faith in this story is the one fact we do have.

Yes, (1) is given ad hoc, as I’ve clearly stated on this thread numerous times, for the sake of this discussion, even though I don’t think it actually is ad hoc. That discussion is very multi-layered and I didn’t want to go down that route because I wanted to stick with what I felt was a natural way to take the original question of this thread due to questions directly asked of me. I’ve still addressed this in the comparison of the different theories and shared why I think it doesn’t deal the death blow to an actual resurrection being the best explanation of the data.

(2) Jesus’ existence, which was argued for, assumes a mother. That her name was Mary or had the qualities ascribed to her in the Gospels is irrelevant to this discussion.

(3) How Jesus was conceived is a question worth asking, but irrelevant to the argument being discussed. Assume God didn’t impregnate Mary and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.

(3) Assume whatever you want about Mary’s marital status and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.

(4) Assume whatever you want about a god and human being able to create viable offspring and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.

(5) This is a continued irrelevancy from the previous ones.

(6) This was argued for.

(7) This was argued for.

(...) That the Bible has other tales included, which you can assume any interpretation you want of those, and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.

So, we have a bunch of irrelevant points and points that I argued for, rather than doing “absolutely nothing to put fact to any of it.” I can understand someone not agreeing with the argument, but to say there is no argument and that it is just “faith” is such a complete misunderstanding of things, in my opinion. Everyone has the posts before them to make up their own mind on that.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #766

Post by The Tanager »

brunumb wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:30 pmThe historical facts do not tell us that a dead body came back to life after a couple of days. That is merely speculation and not subject to an explanation.

No, the historical facts point to a dead body coming back to life as the best explanation. That is the argument. Not speculation but an argument.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #767

Post by The Tanager »

Tcg wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:46 amI think it is worth noting that Dan Barker was a Christian preacher and composer for 19 years. What we have is one who knows Christianity from the inside out. If I recall correctly, it was the contradictions found in the Bible that led to his deconversion. In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.
I think this issue is more nuanced than may first appear on the surface. I'm not saying you are disagreeing, just drawing it out for those that may not have thought about this before. It's often a belief in contradictions along with a particular view of inerrancy and literal-ness that is prevalent in many Christian circles that lead to the deconversions of people like Barker, Ehrman, and others. And that is still not as nuanced as it could be.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7151
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1284 times
Been thanked: 1507 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #768

Post by Tcg »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:12 pm
Tcg wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:46 amI think it is worth noting that Dan Barker was a Christian preacher and composer for 19 years. What we have is one who knows Christianity from the inside out. If I recall correctly, it was the contradictions found in the Bible that led to his deconversion. In any case it wasn't some rebellion against God as some theists may be likely to presume.
I think this issue is more nuanced than may first appear on the surface. I'm not saying you are disagreeing, just drawing it out for those that may not have thought about this before. It's often a belief in contradictions along with a particular view of inerrancy and literal-ness that is prevalent in many Christian circles that lead to the deconversions of people like Barker, Ehrman, and others. And that is still not as nuanced as it could be.
There is no need to "believe" in contradictions. It is simply acceptance of the fact that there are contradictions.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3950
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3039 times
Been thanked: 1655 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #769

Post by brunumb »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:05 pm
brunumb wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:30 pmThe historical facts do not tell us that a dead body came back to life after a couple of days. That is merely speculation and not subject to an explanation.

No, the historical facts point to a dead body coming back to life as the best explanation. That is the argument. Not speculation but an argument.
But if we look at the historical facts, there is no dead body coming back to life!
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18708
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1679 times
Been thanked: 1136 times

Re: Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

Post #770

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:04 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmYou present nothing but unprovable claims by unprovable people regarding unprovable events.
While stating that “proof” was neither what I was doing, nor what is reasonable to pursue in the large majority of our important beliefs.
Exactly. Devoid of proof, faith is the best you can do.
Obviously, that doesn't mean pursuing what is unreasonable or what most of you seem to mean by "faith".
Maybe if you'd define faith as you see it, you'd dissuade folks from thinking that's all you got.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmWhat field of study do you propose would be best at determining facts regarding dead bodies hopping up and strolling to town?
History and philosophy.
So a history professor, or a professor of philosophy are better suited to consider what happens to dead bodies?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:12 pmYou've taken on faith the following...

1. God exists
2. Mary exists
3. God impregnated Mary in contradiction to his own edict about sexing up someone's wife
3. Which brings us to Mary being married
4. A god and human can create viable offspring
5. That offspring was Jesus
6. Jesus was dead in a tomb
7. Jesus hopped up and left that tomb after three days of dead

Where've you put fact to even one the above faith claims?

You wanna keep fussing about how the resurrection should be accepted as fact, but you do absolutely nothing to put fact to any of it.

Your faith in this story is the one fact we do have.
Yes, (1) is given ad hoc, as I’ve clearly stated on this thread numerous times, for the sake of this discussion, even though I don’t think it actually is ad hoc.
And I point out to folks that such belief is taken on faith.
That discussion is very multi-layered and I didn’t want to go down that route because I wanted to stick with what I felt was a natural way to take the original question of this thread due to questions directly asked of me.
Considering God can't be shown to exist, that's a dead end road.
I’ve still addressed this in the comparison of the different theories and shared why I think it doesn’t deal the death blow to an actual resurrection being the best explanation of the data.
Of course, your faith in the existence of a god you can't show exists is the more rational way to go :roll:
(2) Jesus’ existence, which was argued for, assumes a mother. That her name was Mary or had the qualities ascribed to her in the Gospels is irrelevant to this discussion.
More assumption built on faith - in that it assumes god-human hybrids are possible.
(3) How Jesus was conceived is a question worth asking, but irrelevant to the argument being discussed.
I'm aware many Christians prefer to gloss over, or entirely avoid arguments that contradict their faith.
Assume God didn’t impregnate Mary and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.
But if god-human hybrids can't be shown to produce viable offspring, Jesus never got norm to have died, and the result couldn't possibly have occurred.
(3) Assume whatever you want about Mary’s marital status and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.
I'm going by what the Bible says, not assumption. If God declares sexing up married folks is verboten, the birth of Jesus, and therefore resurrection becomes a conflicting tale.

Which to believe? Why?

Faith.
(4) Assume whatever you want about a god and human being able to create viable offspring and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.
No, cause as above, if human-god hybrids can't be shown to be viable, Jesus never makes it to the point of being resurrected
(5) This is a continued irrelevancy from the previous ones.
I'm aware many theists consider a thorough analysis of their faith an "irrelevancy".
(6) This was argued for.
And never shown to be anything but a faith based belief.
(7) This was argued for.
And never shown to be anything beyond a faith based belief.
(...) That the Bible has other tales included, which you can assume any interpretation you want of those, and we still have the resurrection case to deal with, unchanged.
What remains most steadfastly unchanged is your continued faith in claims you can't show to be fact.
So, we have a bunch of irrelevant points and points that I argued for
Just claiming stuff ain't showing that stuff to be fact.

You're arguing a faith based position.
, rather than doing “absolutely nothing to put fact to any of it.” I can understand someone not agreeing with the argument, but to say there is no argument and that it is just “faith” is such a complete misunderstanding of things, in my opinion.
Then please, point us to one single fact you've presented regarding the resurrection.
Everyone has the posts before them to make up their own mind on that.
And I'm certain they'll see faith ain't fact.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

Post Reply